Support for Intel X1000

[Kinsella, Ray]

On Tue, 2015-05-12 at 15:22 +0000, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 04:38:04PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > On 05/12/2015 12:28 PM, Kinsella, Ray wrote:
> > 
> Not only that, but the code would not be working. In the kernel,
> defining UP and disabling lock prefix is sufficient because the kernel
> controls scheduling and interrupt masking and therefore doesn't need
> atomics except for synchronizing with other physical cores. 
> 
The X1000 with the bug is only available in a UP configuration (single
core, single socket), so there is no other physical cores to synchronize
with. Granted a glibc build targeting a UP environment like this, would
immediately break on a multi-core/socket system.

Ray K